In beds of a silty soil in northern Victoria, the wetter the soil (up to a water content of 24 g/100 g soil) when tilled, the less dust (i.e. particles (0.5 mm diameter) and the more clods (particles >20 mm diameter) were formed. Almost no water infiltrated into the beds tilled at a water content of 24% (w/w). In the remaining beds, tilled at water contents ranging from 11 to 22%, infiltration from water confined to 8 cm depth in the furrow was inversely related to the percentage of dust (r2 = 0.57, P< 0.01), and directly related percentage of clods >20 mm diameter (r2 = 0.42, P< 0.01).

No abstract

No abstract

A low cost single sided harvester with a multi-level catching device was designed to harvest fruit from Tatura Trellis trees planted at 6 × 1 m. Limb Shakers were used to remove cling peaches (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) and the machine-harvested fruit showed fewer injuries than fruit picked by contract labor. Although the machine harvested peaches had a greater proportion of cut fruit, the percentage of bruised fruit was significantly lower. Bruising was shown to be a function of flesh firmness for both harvesting methods. ‘Williams’ Bon Chretien’ (‘Bartlett’) pears (Pyrus communis L.) were harvested with a trunk shaker from single trellis type limbs in a standard orchard which had been modified for mechanical harvesting. Comparisons between the trellis harvester, a 2-unit Catchall harvester and fruit picked by contract labor showed that the proportion of bruised fruit was lowest for the trellis harvester. Relationships were established between the location of pears within the canopy of trellis type limbs and damage to fruit. Trunk shaking caused displacement of fruit and branches resulting in damage to fruit. Results show that trellis pear trees may be suitable for mechanical harvesting if fruit is used for processing.

Abstract. Machinery was designed specifically for relay‐cropping on permanent raised beds (150 mm high and 1.5 m wide) in northern Victoria. This machinery enabled maize (Zea mays) to be successfully sown at 2, 4 and 5 weeks before harvest, and 1 day after harvest (Control), of wheat (Triticum aestivum). The sowing equipment consisted of a four‐row cultivator, behind which were four precision seeders. The wheels (250 mm in diameter) were spaced at 1.5 m to track along the base of the furrows. In one pass on each bed, the sowing equipment tilled two strips (each 50 mm wide, 30 mm deep and 50 mm from the outer row of wheat) and sowed maize, with little damage to the wheat crop. We extended the axle of the trailed harvester so that the wheels (250 mm in diameter) were 3 m apart, and moved the drawbar 300 mm to one side so that all wheels ran along the base of the furrows. There were no significant differences between treatments in yield (mean 2.9 t ha‐1) of dryland wheat, in final emergence percentage (mean 89%) or in early growth of irrigated maize. The maize yielded significantly less grain in the treatment sown at 5 weeks (9.6 t ha‐1), but not 2 or 4 weeks (mean 10.6 t ha‐1) before the wheat was harvested, than in the Control (10.8 t ha‐1). The wheat and maize yielded more grain than those grown traditionally as sole crops in northern Victoria.